Posted on 05/26/2002 11:57:01 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
With a stroke of the pen, one un-elected and unaccountable federal bureaucrat – whose name may not be familiar to you – recently ruled that airline pilots may not keep firearms in their cockpits.
His name is John Magaw, or, as I call him, "No-Draw Magaw."
Magaw's newest job is Transportation Security Administration director.
Last week, Magaw told the U.S. Senate that pilots don't need guns. He told the Senate pilots would be better off concentrating on flying their planes. He told the Senate he is considering allowing pilots to carry stun guns or collapsible metal batons.
Sen. George Allen, R-Va., asked the obvious question about how the tragic and devastating events of Sept. 11 might have been recast without such restrictions imposed on responsible airline pilots, most of whom are trained in the military.
"If they had firearms, if they had a pistol to defend themselves or their plane, would that have made a difference?"
Here is the incomprehensible, elusive, nonsensical response from Magaw: "Well it may have, but that's a lot different today than it was then."
Hello? Earth to No-Draw: Don't the American people deserve a slightly better explanation than that? Don't the victims of Sept. 11 deserve a slightly more thoughtful response? Don't the families of those victims in both the planes and the buildings deserve some straight talk?
Let me tell you a little more about No-Draw Magaw and his career path to what has become a critically important post in this security-conscious age of international terrorism.
On April 19, 1995, Magaw was director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. You may remember that date in history. It was the day the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed.
"I was very concerned about that day and issued memos to all our field offices," Magaw explained. "They were put on the alert."
As a result of that alert, no ATF field agents in the Murrah Building were killed or injured – even though they were the apparent target of the bombing. No one else in the building got any warning, so 168 men, women and children were killed. But no ATF agent got a scratch. Magaw did a great job of protecting his own that day, but he didn't do much to protect innocent civilians.
The next time I heard about John Magaw was a year later. In 1996, Congress passed a contemptible piece of legislation known as the "Gun Free Zones Act." It created a 1,000-foot "gun-free" zone around every school in America – thus ensuring the Columbines to come.
But No-Draw Magaw, still the ATF director, interpreted this law in an amazingly broad fashion – one that betrayed his persona as a gun-grabbing activist rather than a responsible public official serving the best interest of the taxpayers and under the authority of the U.S. Constitution.
Magaw expressed the opinion in writing to at least one member of Congress that "schools," in the case of the "Gun Free Zones Act," included "home schools" that are operated under state law. In other words, Magaw decided it was against the law for home-schooling families to own guns and equally illegal for gun-owners to home-school.
That wasn't the end of the No-Draw Magaw saga. In 1999, President Clinton appointed Magaw to another powerful and sensitive position – coordinating domestic terrorism efforts for the federal Emergency Management Agency. In other words, No-Draw was instrumental in planning national policy to prevent terrorism two years prior to the biggest terrorist assault in world history.
We know now, of course, that Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts were all devoted to rooting out an imaginary threat from Christian, right-wing, anti-government militia types. Islamist threats were systematically overlooked.
Why did Magaw keep getting these big jobs during the Clinton administration? No-Draw was a favorite of the former president. Before getting the job at BATF, he served as director of Clinton's Secret Service. Imagine the secrets such a man will take to the grave.
Of course, that may explain why he got such posts during the Clinton years. What else explains his continued prominence as a virtual dictator of command-and-control-style national security policy during the Bush administration?
Americans may elect new members of Congress. They may elect new presidents. But they can never, it seems, change the names and faces of the permanent federal bureaucracy, which, ultimately has more negative impact on our rights and liberties than all three of the supposedly accountable branches of government combined.
That's the sad state of American self-government today. As many as 95 percent of Americans may back the common-sense idea of guns in the cockpit, but the permanent government can simply flout the will of the people.
A 9-11 may happen because of the proliferation of these numbskulls in key positions, (see the Minnesota memo, I refer to the unnamed FBI HQ Supervisory Special Agent who repeatedly spiked the computer search warrant), but the more important factor to their bosses is their bulldog loyalty and zeal to follow orders, even to march off of a cliff. (Or order others to march off a cliff.)
This "leadership" trait of placing blindly loyal idiots in key firewall positions is a central part of my novel.
There is simply no justification or rationale behind the decision.
In the event of hijackings, this policy prevents pilots, who already have a life and death power over the passengers, from having the tools to save the plane, the passengers, people on the ground, the buildings and symbols of America, the U.S. economy, our peace of mind, etc.
This will not stand.
What a slug! Since the first time I heard on the news about the OKC bombing something smelled real bad about it. I'm convinced the Feds knew when and where the bombing was going to happen. The only thing is I can't figure out why they didn't stop it.
Bush's greatest weakness: he's too nice. This guy and Mineta as well as several in the FBI ought to be canned.
How come every time a DemonCrap gets the White House, there is wholesale slaughter of all federal appointees, but ever time a Republican gets the White House, they sheepishly accept whoever is in the post?
I offer three suggestions: The airlines themselves put heavy pressure on Bush not to allow guns, because they're afraid of the liability if a pilot does something wrong with a gun. Right now they can always blame the FEDERAL airport screening for any hijacking/crash.
The gov'ment knows more about they way the terrorists opperate then they are willing to tell, and they don't think guns will be an effective deterrent.
This is just an extension of the "No civilians in this country shall be allowed to bear arms." policy of ruling elite. e.g. FEDERAL marshalls on planes with guns OK, PRIVATE pilots with guns NOT OK.
Your thinking is flawed in that nearly all of the major airlines top management is former career captains. Their thinking is 100 per cent in tune with their current pilots.
The CEO's may be MBA's but the people in charge of daily operations are pilots.
Just as a point of interest, I wonder if Magaw was not also present and worked for the elder Bush???
This statement should tell us all we need to know about this despicable little tyrant.
The big question really is, why is he in the position he now occupies instead of fishing in his bass boat in Arkansas on a fat pension?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.